June 26, 2011

Yesterday morning, I first read the story written by Bill Lueders — of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism — saying that "Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers earlier this month."

I'm linking to the publication of the article in the Wisconsin State Journal, because it seems to be the original version of what Lueders wrote. The version that now appears at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism has been — according to a note in red at the top, time-stamped 10:15 p.m. — "updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations." But "updated" does not mean that there is an update at the bottom of the original text, adding new material or noting mistakes. The article has been rewritten, so the flaws that I am going to write about here can no longer be detected.

I first read the Lueders article after it was noted in an email that went out to the Wisconsin Law School faculty. I won't quote that email, but my immediate emailed response was: "I think it would make an interesting object of study for a journalism class."

By the way, the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, as you might imagine, purports to model high journalism values. It is "a first-of-its-kind alliance with public broadcasting journalists in six cities around the state, plus students and faculty of the journalism school at Wisconsin’s flagship university." Wisconsin's "flagship university" is, of course, the University of Wisconsin—Madison, my place of employment. I'm not inclined to hurt my own university, but I will make my observations as I see them. This is an object of study for the little journalism class of the internet that is this blog post.

Over the course of the day, yesterday, on lefty blogs and Twitter, there were vicious attacks on Prosser, with many opponents of Prosser (and Scott Walker) asserting that Prosser must leave the court. He should resign (or be impeached or recalled). I linked to a blog post over at Think Progress, where Ian Millhiser concluded:

Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous.

I agreed with Millhiser that "if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go." But I wanted to know the whole story. It seemed to me that Lueders had given us "just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event." I was skeptical about the version of the story Lueders had put out, because there had been no arrest and because I found it hard to picture an elderly, dignified man suddenly grabbing a (somewhat less elderly) woman by the neck.

I first noted the Lueders article in this post, where I excerpted 2 paragraphs and wondered about Lueders's reference to his sources: "The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships." Lueders said he had "three knowledgeable sources," and that he had contacted Prosser for a response and that Prosser had said "I have nothing to say about it."

He repeated this statement after the particulars of the story - including the allegation that there was physical contact between him and Bradley - were described. He did not confirm or deny any part of the reconstructed account.

The Journal Sentinel then cites "another source" that said "that Bradley attacked Prosser." Here we get the first allegation that Bradely "charged him with fists raised" and that Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," blocking her, resulting in hand-neck contact.

The Journal Sentinel begins a new paragraph with "Another source..." If that is not miswritten, we now have a third source — "another" and then "another" — that's the second and third source. This third source, like the second source, has Bradley coming at Prosser "with fists up" and Prosser reacting defensively. This source — which I'm seeing as the Sentinel's third source — confirms the first source in saying that Bradley called it choking at the time. This source also has a Justice (not Prosser) reacting by saying "You were not choked."

Now, we've just reviewed the stories of various unnamed sources, as reported by Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What I want to know is: What is the total number of sources? Is it 6? 5? 4? Or is it 3? It could be only 3! That is, 2 of Lueders's sources could have been the sources who gave the fuller context, with Bradley as the aggressor. What did Lueders know and when did he know it? Did Lueders have the fists-of-fury version of the story and deliberately leave it out? Did he leave it out when he contacted Prosser for a response and recited "the particulars of the story," the "reconstructed account" that he referred to in his article.

I told you this was going to be a little journalism class. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, will you investigate your own journalism?

Maybe Prosser had "nothing to say about it" because the "reconstructed account" Lueders recited contained the allegation that Bradley charged at him with raised fists. Prosser did comment later in the day — a day full of destructive attacks on him, which speculated about the meaning of his absence of comment. Those attacks assumed that Prosser knew the story in the form that would appear in Lueders's article. But did he? I want to know!

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

When I wrote that, it did not cross my mind that the "truly evil" person might be Lueders himself. That's something occurred to me when I woke up this morning and began thinking about the possibility that the total number of unnamed sources was only 3.

Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?

Now, let's go back to what Ian Millhiser said: "Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous." All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?

Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.

And what are the methods of ouster? Refer to the list in Millhiser's post: 1. Resignation, 2. Impeachment, 3. Removal by Address, and 4. Recall. A newly reelected official, under Wisconsin law, cannot be recalled for a year. Unlike Prosser, who was just reelected, Bradley is subject to recall. Impeachment and removal by address are procedures that take place in the state legislature. But the state legislature is controlled by the Republicans, who aren't likely to go after Prosser. Only Bradley is vulnerable to impeachment and removal by address if the legislature is influenced by political ideology. And if either justice is removed, the replacement will be named by Governor Scott Walker, so only Bradley's ouster will change the conservative-liberal balance on the court.

See what I mean about stupid? If Lueders didn't know the allegation about Bradley after doing his investigative journalism, that was stupid. How could he investigate and not find that out? If Lueders did know the allegation and suppressed it he was not merely stupid but evil. And make no mistake about how stupid: His article initiated a day of furious writing by liberals that threatens to hurt Bradley and the liberal interests in Wisconsin.

ADDED: I corrected a mistake in the paragraph that begins "Maybe Prosser had 'nothing to say about it'..." It was originally missing the word "had" and said "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited contained the allegation" instead of "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited did not contain the allegation..." UPDATE: It was right the first time, as someone in the comments pointed out! I uncorrected it. And now it's un-uncorrected. Sorry for the confusion!

ALSO: Instapundit says: "It’s as if the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is just a partisan hit shop or something."

As our original story reported, the Center and WPR made individual inquiries to every member of the Supreme Court...

We had as reported "at least three" sources for the statement that Prosser allegedly put his hands around Bradley's neck. We also spoke to others who declined to give any information about what occurred. No one said or suggested in any way, shape or form that Bradley was the aggressor, a charge that Prosser himself has not made. The Journal Sentinel says it found sources who contend this, so we updated the story to reflect that, but I do not know who these sources are and have no way to gauge their credibility, as I do for the sources we had.

As you know, Justice Bradley has now publicly accused Prosser of putting his hands around her neck and ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault....

We absolutely did not have information about an alternative version that we purposely withheld.

So, it's a mystery how the Journal Sentinel came up with the 2 sources who portrayed Bradley as the physical aggressor. Lueders does not say whether he went back to his original sources to inquire about about the truth of that story — unless Bradley was one of the original sources. Whether Bradley was one of the original sources or not, he's giving us only an ambiguous statement with respect to the question whether she did anything like charging at Prosser with raised fists. We get the conclusory assertion — not in the form of a direct quote — that she "ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault." Her version could be that Prosser verbal statements made her extremely angry and refused to leave her office, so it was his fault that she ran at him with raised fists. What exactly happened? Why didn't she call the police?

Lueders doesn't say how much (if at all) he probed into the context of what happened. I'm puzzled by his lack of curiosity about a story that is so inherently hard to believe. Why did the Journal Sentinel so quickly turn up a more complex version of the story? Was Lueders willfully incurious? Why did he pass on such an odd story without asking the questions that an ordinary person would instinctively ask? Or did he ask those questions? Did his sources insist that Bradley was sitting or standing peacefully and Prosser suddenly lunged at her? Or did he snap up the useful version of the story and run with it? It just doesn't add up to me.

If Lueders did know the allegation and suppressed it he was not merely stupid but evil. And make no mistake about how stupid: His article initiated a day of furious writing by liberals that threatens to hurt Bradley and the liberal interests in Wisconsin.

I have no doubt that when this is all resolved the left will regret starting this fight.

Who are the three "anonymous sources?" My intuition tells me its Shirley and the Shirleyettes although Crooks wasn't present at the meeting.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices - Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks

The MJS says that Crooks wasnt there, so

You have Bradley, Abrahamson, and the 4 justices in the majority in the room arguing over how long the Chief can stall releasing the decision, so

If Bradley was not the orginal source of the choking rumor, it had to be abrahamson or one of the 4 conservatives, what are the odds?

and what are the chances that the 2 liberal statements are going to align perfectly, but the 4 other statements while more divergent (and I argue truthful, but regardless) are going to differ from the 2 liberal women.. just sayin

-------On your point about whether Bradley should resign if she started the fight (instead of Prosser), I'd make the point that if Bradley did charge Prosser, it was not so much the assault as such that bothers me, but rather the naked attempt to subsequently spin Prosser's defense into a call for his resignation. Bradley is now entrapped in that story line...

See what I mean about stupid? If Lueders didn't know the allegation about Bradley after doing his investigative journalism, that was stupid. How could he investigate and not find that out? If Lueders did know the allegation and suppressed it he was not merely stupid but evil.

Well said Ann, although I think many of us are thining you have wild courts and politicians in Wisconsin.

It sounds like the WI Supreme Court and its staff is a somewhat closed environment, with not a great deal of leaking (only 3 people were sources, apparently, and it's not really clear if they were justices or even in the room when it happened)

People expect journalists to know everything, but they only know what they can find out on their own (often very little) and what people tell them.

If no one told Mr. Lueders a Prosser-friendly account of what took place before he published his initial story, he wouldn't know about it. Don't blame journalists because some liberal runs to them and tells a sob story that turns out to be false. You're shooting the messenger.

It's likely that none of the neutral/conservative sources wanted to say anything to a journalist, but felt their hand was forced by the publication of a one-sided story.

Ann wants to appeal to Millhiser's sense of fairness on the issue of who should go depending on which version turns out to be true. This is somebody who works for Think Progress. A disciple of Uncle Saul. An employee of Dr Evil.

This is the outfit that said the South deserves all the bad weather it's had because the rednecks don't buy global warming.

You are never going to get him to do anything on the basis of fairness.

PS You have a Justice named Patience Roggensack and one named N. Patrick Crooks?

First thing I read this morning was about a reason.tv reporter who got arrested for filming the arrest of another reporter who took a picture at a public DC Taxi Commission meeting. The second thing I read was this.

My first thought was that Lueders initial source was not a witness to the event, but perhaps a clerk who only heard Bradleys side and didn't stop to think that with such an outrageous claim about Prosser there might be more to the story. I can't imagine any of the justices (term used loosely) witnessing the event would have been stupid enough to leak it to the media.

But you're right, that still wouldn't justify that source and Lueders credulous acceptance of the story. Very stupid.

If no one told Mr. Lueders a Prosser-friendly account of what took place before he published his initial story, he wouldn't know about it. Don't blame journalists because some liberal runs to them and tells a sob story that turns out to be false. You're shooting the messenger.

The point is that he is supposed to be a "journalist" and not just a partisan hack parrot.

When presented with a story, a true journalist will do some investigation and determine the facts before writing a story.

By just repeating rumours and presenting only one side of a story, Leuder has descended into propagana depths.

An honest reporter would present the entire story or at least attempt to present the entire story.

A dishonest reporter with an agenda will skew the story and hide information.

The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.

Any journalist worth the name would have refused to grant anonymity on those grounds.

Besides - "preserve professional relationships"? They hate each other, and everybody knows they hate each other. There is no professional relationship to be preserved. Hell, everybody involved already knows who the "anonymous sources" are.

There was zero justification for Lueders to run this story based on anonymous sources.

Great analysis. Leuders is liberal and, if not actually stupid, his liberalism made him stupid. It is hard to imagine it made him so stupid to publish his story knowing Bradley charged Prosser. So the more likely explanation is that he was suckered by a liberal source and then let his bias take over in publishing an article without being intellectually curious and thorough enough to focus on the issue of what actually prompted Prosser's action -- that Bradley charged Prosser. If he is an honest man, he will explain what happened.

Shouldn't Althouse's source count be at least tied at 2 to 2, re choke or no choke?

"The sources who spoke to the Center and WPR said an argument about that ruling culminated in a physical altercation in the presence of other justices. They say Bradley purportedly asked Prosser to leave her office, whereupon Prosser grabbed Bradley by the neck with both hands."

I should say that I think the sources being quoted in papers were initially a clerk and someone with the Capitol Police

That doesn't jibe with the claim that the sources had to be anonymous in order to "preserve professional relationships". Although it's possible that Lueders made that up because he thought it made his story sound better.

Prosser is an old school judge and lawyerly gentleman (in his imagination if not in fact). He would never, ever be the cause of one of his fellow judges getting revealed to the general public as being batshit crazy (Bradley, in this case). That the failing colleague is a woman makes it even less likely.

Professional groups cover for their failing members all the time. Old age and infirmity takes us all out eventually, and it ain't pretty to watch. I mean, you'd want someone to cover for you until you could ease out, right?

Try this little experiment. Just this once. I know it'll twist your mind to the snapping point, but give it a shot, ok?

Instead of tossing out meaningless snark like you did above, try to actually think about what Althouse is saying and comment on the content of her post. Y'know? Maybe contribute to the discussion? Disprove the point Althouse is making?

"Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? "

I don't think he remained ignorant of the whole story (seems impossible that none of his 3 sources mentioned the "fists raised charge") but I do think he feigned ignorance in his writing, his follow-up calls, etc. And I expect that he'll continue to lie and deflect. That "Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism Institute" sounds like a real objective joint. I'm betting it's just one more institution in Wisconsin that has been polluted and destroyed by greedy and underhanded Lefties.

"even if he only lashed out after weeks or years of merciless bullying"

Have there been specifics reported? How was he bullied?

We know he called a lady Justice, who is ten years his senior, a bitch. And, he said he'd destroy her. His explanation for this was that the lady deserved it because she had abused him. No specifics given.

Althouse likes build a mountain of speculation from which she throws around labels like evil and stupid. But, there is no speculation regarding the ways Prosser has acted toward his woman colleagues, as Althouse says, that's "dignified."

As soon as I saw who wrote it and that it was a "joint investigation" that included Wisconsin Public Radio, which was in the by-line of the original story posted by the Journal Sentinel, thats all I needed to know with regards to believing the all of the facts werent out, or were they true.

Simply put: if you are going to charge a sitting Wisconsin Supreme Court justice of felony assault/battery, especially when there has been no criminal charges or even a police report, you better damn well have more than just "unnamed sources". And those sources better all say the same thing.

The left in this state has just become unhinged. They cant believe that the usual Dane County establishment doesnt run this state anymore. The governor is from Wauwatosa. The Fitzgeralds are from Juneau and Horicon. Thats not supposed to happen in Wisconsin.

"If Lueders didn't know the allegation about Bradley after doing his investigative journalism, that was stupid. How could he investigate and not find that out?"

It's also stupid because libel is a tort. Slander against a public official must be done with malice aforethought and the coordination of these Soros-groups in spreading this story is absolute evidence of malice aforethought.

They've committed a classic libel.

Justice Prosser should sue the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism for the sole purpose of getting discovery into the emails and behind-the-scenes machinations of the Democrat Party front groups that are seeking to conspire to obstruct the justice that goes on in the Wisconsin State Supreme courtroom.

Prof. Althouse - first of all I have to admit that you sure live in an interesting state!Secondly, you said your immediate emailed response was: "I think it would make an interesting object of study for a journalism class." and I think you are correct.Frequently one's immediate response turns out, upon due consideration, to have been the correct one.And while I agree that Lueders needs to come clean on this, I predict that he will hide behind the need to keep his sources anonymity intact and not respond. And I further predict that the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism will support Lueders position completely.

"An honest reporter would present the entire story or at least attempt to present the entire story.

A dishonest reporter with an agenda will skew the story and hide information.

Which one is Lueder?"

All you have to do is read Lueders' response to the MJS article last night to know which one he is. He takes the balanced Journal report and instead of using the information to take a more circumspect tack, he spins it into further evidence for his partisan claim. He's all in, and if proven wrong should be thoroughly disgraced (though I'm not sure disgrace is something that Lueders is capable of feeling...)

I frankly believe that Judge Prosser should arm himself with a weapon and the next time Judge Bradley comes at him with fists raised he should defend himself against her assault with all due force required to put a stop to her crimes.

I try and reserve the word evil for truly evil things. Loathsome and tendentious may apply here. Is the greatest possibility not that there was a deliberate attempt to leave out facts from the story, but...

...rather that the very few facts early available to the journalist fit their notions of the people involved, that Prosser is a malevolent actor and bad person, and when a few facts dribble out that fit the warped worldview of the listener, it fit so perfectly into their preconceived notions about those involved that it never could occur to them that the information was incomplete or incorrect? They heard 2 and 2 is 4, and ran with it, never stopping to ask if that meant 2 aardvarks and 2 sodas equals 4 dozen buffalo head nickels.

The few pieces fit everything they thought about those involved, so truth was assumed because no other reality could be contemplated by the listener...

If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. [emphasis in the original]

Stupid is as stupid does.

This was one of your most thoughtful posts I've ever read, Professor. I do have a couple quick questions about Wisconsin legal procedures regarding impeachment, if you don't mind.

First, does impeachment work the same way in Wisconsin that it does at the federal level? Lower house impeaches, Senate tries?

Secondly, does conviction require a majority of the Senators, a supermajority, or just a majority of the Senators voting? In other words, is there room for the Democrat senators to skedaddle down to Illinois (or up to Canada) to deadlock the procedures the way they deadlocked the budget voting?

Flesner, I think a clerk might also be concerned about professional relationships. The Capitol Police are likely the second source as the journalists tried to piece together the story.

Considering the story told by the third source, I have a hard time believing that Bradley or Abrahamson could have been the first source. It would be unfathomably stupid for either of them to have leaked the story — they would have known there was a counter argument that would end up just reflecting poorly on all parties.

Once the story broke I can see the justices becoming sources: it's out and they have to circle the wagons. But the initial source I can only see being someone who was not an eyewitness and only heard one side of the story. Still stupid, but much less so than a if the primary source were a justice.

The funny thing is: at 5 PM yesterday afternoon, this story had a big, bold headline at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website. I believe it said something to the effect of: "Report: Prosser grabbed fellow justice by the neck".

I just looked now, at 11:40 AM, and its not even the top story on their webpage. And now the headline is "Justices' feud gets physical". In tiny letters, and easy to miss.

I commented yesterday wondering how long it would take for the media to hide this story away, now that different accusations and circumstances are coming out.

The media is simply amazing in this country. They will sift through thousands of Sarah Palin's emails hoping to find her saying something disparaging, yet they have no problem writing a hit-and-run piece on a sitting Supreme Court justice and basically accuse him of a felony with nothing but hearsay evidence.

Interesting post I guess but to what end? The liberal players here don't give one rat's ass about journalistic ethics or standards. Didn't yesterday, don't today, won't tomorrow. They live in an echo chamber, and write for that audience.

The number one reason journalism students cite for their chosen path..."they want to change the world". What world to you think that is?

Well done, Althouse, well done. I learned something from your insight. Thank you.

My own take: Justice Bradley and/or Chief Justice Abrahamson said something to their clerks about the incident. Being upset, they made no attempt to report what had happened fairly. Instead, (as most of us would) they told their clerks a version of events that made themselves look good and the other side look as bad as possible.

One or more of those clerks eventually told Lueders the story. Lueders then contacted Bradley (and/or Abrahamson) and she said enough to confirm the story to Lueders. How could she deny anything happened without looking foolish in the eyes of her clerks? Instead, she most likely said something along the lines of: "Yea, well, something happened, but I don't want to discuss it. It was a heated discussion and sometimes people say and do things they regret later. I don't want to make a big deal out of it. I have to maintain a professional relationship, so I don't want to talk about it." etc. Lueders, naturally, took this as a full confirmation of the clerk's account.

Lueders then contacted Prosser, who, thinking there was nothing to the incident (and seeking to protect Bradley's reputation?), refused to comment. Prosser's "no comment" was taken by Lueders as further confirmation.

Lueders then published a story written to make Prosser look as bad as possible. The fact that Prosser commented AFTER the story ran, seems to prove that Lueders didn't share with Prosser the full color of the story he planned to write. Why wait for the story to run before denying it? That just doesn't make sense. No, if the printed accusation was strong enough to prompt Prosser to make a statement denying the accusation, the spoken accusation should have produced the same response.

So, while I believe Lueders did the minimal amount of work necessary to vet his story, it's clear he didn't do the work necessary to get to the bottom of the story. He didn't share with Prosser the text of the story he planned to publish and ask for his comment. Had he done so, Prosser probably would have given him a strong (and salty?) denial. Prosser may have arranged for some of the others in the room to talk with Lueders before the story was published. It also seems Lueders didn't share the text of the story with Bradley (or Abrahamson) before it was published. Had he done so, Bradley may have felt obliged to soften her account of what happened.

Sharing the text of the story with the participants would have left Lueders without a story to publish. That's the journalism lesson -- never do too much work to ruin a good story.

"So, you're equating a man calling a woman a bitch with a woman allegedly assaulting a man, who then defends himself?"

I'm asking why is Althouse hiding that the man is an unapologetic hot head who has aggressively (verbally) attacked a lady ten years older than himself? Why lie to us by saying that this sort of abuse is dignified?

Stupid or evil?

BTW, so far the only accusations that have been made by someone openly on the record are from the lady Justice. The Prosser was-attacked-defense is (so far) anonymous. And, Meade will tell you that anonymous folks have less credibility. Let's wait until someone ties their name to the specifics from the Prosser side before we assume that version is written in stone.

Instead of tossing out meaningless snark like you did above, try to actually think about what Althouse is saying and comment on the content of her post

What is the point of this post besides rallying to Prosser's camp? She doesn't know who the sources that talked to Leuders are, and she doesn't like that?

Prosser is a volcano tempered menace with past outbursts with female colleagues. I'm supposed to believe Prosser's hands wound up around Bradley's neck in her chambers because of self defense? How fucking stupid do you think people are? It's always Prosser who has these problems, and nobody else. Why?

" ... so (Althouse) responds by prejudging Bill Lueders before all the facts are in evidence. Nice consistency, Professor!"

Bullshit.

She hasn't judged him.

She's raising very important questions about journalistic impartiality that demand answers. Once we get those answers, then we can pass judgement on whether there was absolute malice in this journalism. Whether or not Leuders is ethical.

If Lueders refuses to disclose the facts of what he knew and when he knew them, that's dispositive of absolute malice and we can then judge him.

But he cannot remain silent.

Leuders' report has been called into question with good reason. No judgement has been made. Yet.

But there are serious flaws evident in his original reporting and the coordination amongst a lot of shady front groups suggests that his reporting is corrupt.

(...)so she responds by prejudging Bill Lueders before all the facts are in evidence.

How so? From Althouse:

I'm linking to the publication of the article in the Wisconsin State Journal, because it seems to be the original version of what Lueders wrote. The version that now appears at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism has been — according to a note in red at the top, time-stamped 10:15 p.m. — "updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations." But "updated" does not mean that there is an update at the bottom of the original text, adding new material or noting mistakes. The article has been rewritten, so the flaws that I am going to write about here can no longer be detected.

The bolded part is very important, and hasn't received much comment as yet. Rewriting an article to reflect an uncomfortable new reality without citing the changes to the article is a rather large lapse in terms of journalistic ethics. That, at the very least, shines a light on Leuders' underhandedness in this matter. It shows that this has become a matter of spin as opposed to journalism from his perspective, if it was ever journalism in the first place.

We don't have all the evidence on the Wisconsin Supremes, but we do have the evidence of Leuders painting himself into a corner and then doubling down in panic.

I'm asking why is Althouse hiding that the man is an unapologetic hot head who has aggressively (verbally) attacked a lady ten years older than himself?

We don't know that he did any such thing. We know he called her a bitch, but not what she said or did to provoke that response. For all we know she was the "aggressive (verbal) attacker" in that case and he simply responded. Maybe she called him a pedophile (that was in vogue on the left for a while) and then he called her a bitch.

Journalism is a whore house. Right off the bat all you're really discussing is what the blow job will cost.

Was this a smear attempt?

Sure.

Can you find anyone's fingers around anyone's throat ... where you have a police report? NO.

All you have is one slut ... who has an office. And, she claims Prosser came in and strangled her.

Or they had a fight. Tiff. Ashtrays were thrown kind of Hillary confrontation. But really! SHORT ON FACTS!

For Prosser, a lesson that goes bacy to Harry Truman. Harry Truman wouldn't let a female, alone into his room. Be it the Oval Office (which is a room). Or a hotel room, when he was on the road.)

At home, he left the door to the room open. And, he sat himself down at the piano. With his fingers on the keys. Making noises.

Truman never wanted to be accused of sex, by some smear artist. Whose only thought was all you had to do was get the female in the room. And, you've got your story.

We're lucky the bitch doesn't claim, now, she's pregnant. And, Prosser impregnated her. And, she can "hang a fetus" as good as Huma.

Of course, some stories are more true than others. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, all this journalistic spoof is missing is Monty Python walking through doing classes on silly walks.

Sure. Lies start running trying to set fires. While the truth is still in bed, waiting for the alarm to go off.

Can't fool me.

I think the democraps in Wisconsin are beyond panic mode, now. I think they're trying to give women such bad names ... that there's no hope for them, where they are trusted advancing women into men's jobs. Oh, yeah. There will be a price to pay!

How fucking stupid do you think people are? It's always Prosser who has these problems, and nobody else. Why?

1. So fucking stupid they voted for Kloppenberg, who in turn was so stupid she declared victory with a 200-vote lead and demanded a recount when losing by 7,000. So, that stupid. Stand up an be counted, GM.

2. Who doesn't want to throttle idiot libs, wherever they might be found? It's not a "problem" to feel that way, it's normal. You are finally figuring out what it felt like to be a conservative in Madison. We did it for decades, you just started. Fun, ain't it?

Althouse, flensner, and Prosser: It's dignified to call a lady colleague ten years older than yourself a bitch, and it's dignified to threaten to destroy her, because of [use your imagination, because there are no facts available].

It really never made sense that Prosser was the agressor given that he won his election. It's invariably those on the losing end of a contest who lash out.

Regardless, I totally agree with the the idea that whoever initiated physical confrontation should be made to go. If that's Prosser, so be it. You'd have to be a fool to expect the left to push for this formulation if it turns out Prosser is the victim. Their capacity for rationalizing all behavior to their own self interest is great, as this sorry affair aptly shows.

Flesner, I think a clerk might also be concerned about professional relationships.

Please. This clerk was so concerned about "preserving professional relationships" among the judges she worked for that she leaked this story to the press? And said, "But don't use my name, because I want to preserve their professional relationship"?

Maybe the clerk said "I'm afraid I'll lose my job if if my name is attached to this story" and Lueders changed this to "preserving professional relationships". In which case he was lying. Come to think of it, he was lying in the first case too. There is no scenario in which the granting of anonymity had anything to do with "preserving professional relations".

It's not a trivial point. A big part of the reason why American "journalism" is such a rancid mess is this practice of granting anonymity to people for no good reason. Ths stupid story would never have seen the light of day if the sources had to put thier names behind it.

It's dignified to call a lady colleague ten years older than yourself a bitch...

No, it's not. I think there's wide agreement on that.

The evidence we have suggests that the WISC is riven by a mixture of political and personal animosity that has become explosive.

What factors have led to this? A reasonable guess is that Wisconsin is the canary in the national mineshaft with respect to the corrosive effects of the use of the courts as an alternative to legislation. Do that, and in the long run judges will view each other the way legislators have for centuries.

@Daryl: "Don't blame journalists because some liberal runs to them and tells a sob story that turns out to be false. You're shooting the messenger."Sorry Daryl, but that just doesn't wash. If someone purports to be a "journalist," with all the competency, professionalism and impartiality that term implies, then he/she MUST be sure to find out all details of a story, before running off at the keys with sensationalism that even the tabloids avoid.

I'm 5'2" in my shoes and if what you say is true, Pb&J, the equation changes drastically if he is faced with a physical attack. Being a man, he still wants to avoid pushing back on her *chest* or her face, of course, but the automatic assumption that a MAN does not feel physically threatened goes out the window.

A person who is 5'2" is loomed over by most people and a physical threat feels more threatening.

The double standard here is outrageous, really. He's a man so he's required not to respond to a physical threat? He's a man so he's required to be a gentleman no matter how pushy and abusive the woman is? He can't say "bitch" but no one really cares if the woman he called a "bitch" acts like a gracious lady or if she acts like a harpy, if she's pushy and abusive... because she's got a vagina?

Or perhaps a woman who has an emotional meltdown and physically rushes someone with fists raised is excused because of her delicate gender and a women who is pushy and abusive and impossible at work is just being "strong"?

Your original text for that paragraph made more sense than the updated version. If Prosser was presented with the full context by Lueder, why would he comment? The facts show he was defending himself. However, if he was presented with a warped story of him attacking a woman unprovoked, I think he would have had to make denial. You were right the first time.

"How fucking stupid do you think people are? It's always Prosser who has these problems, and nobody else. Why?"-------------------

There have been plenty of stories over the years that have described Chief Justice Abrahamson and quite obnoxious and difficult. And she has shown plenty of ability to be personally vindictive...just read her dissent to the collective bargaining law. She spends about as much time ripping David Prosser, which was quite unprofessional and inappropriate, as she does actually commenting on the law she was supposed to comment on.

The underlying problem is that Abrahamson, Bradley, and the other liberals on the court were looking forward to being the "knights in shining armor" by saving the Democrats and unions by overturning Walker's budget law, along with any other substantive pieces of legislation he would sign during his term. Prosser's win deprived them of that spotlight. And now they are pissed.

I love how it's "jumping to conclusions" as long we're talking about the possibility of Prosser attacking Bradley, but if we're talking about the possibility of Bradley attacking Prosser, it becomes a given fact that it occurred.

Journalism, at least in politics, is pretty much gone. Walter Lippman might have been the last. Those were people who knew something and who told the story pretty honestly. Maybe they just assumed that facts were facts and would always support their version of the world. Now, I suspect the left knows it is losing and so is unwilling to let facts speak for themselves.

You can still see honest journalists in science, though. A friend of mine, whose light bulb story you linked to the other day, has gone from being an AGW supporter to skeptic in the past few years. He read every e-mail from the climate center at East Anglia. Not many journalists still have the old fashioned ability to change their minds. Evidence is so old fashioned and slow.

If you carefully read Bradley's account it's consistent with the Bradley-charged-Prosser account.

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold. Those are the facts and you can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin."

You'll notice that there's a gap in the recounting of events: Bradley demands Prosser leave, Prosser winds up with his hands touching her neck. And that is exactly the event under dispute.

"You can make it sound...like I ran up to him...but that's only spin" is a non-denial denial. When a participant says "that's only spin" I regard it as a concession that the facts are against them, and they'd prefer that you not notice.

She calls for an investigation of "abusive behavior in the workplace," not assault. Abusive behavior in the workplace covers a lot of territory, including facts outside of the confrontation under discussion.

My guess: angry words exchanged, she charges him, he stands his ground and tries to push her off. His hands briefly wind up touching her neck as she continues to barrel in.

"I love how it's "jumping to conclusions" as long we're talking about the possibility of Prosser attacking Bradley, but if we're talking about the possibility of Bradley attacking Prosser, it becomes a given fact that it occurred."---------------------

Who is saying that?

The bottom line is that there is no clear evidence of what happened, but the media didnt report it that way yesterday. The first stories of this situation all implied Prosser was the aggressor. And circumstances have now proven that to be questionable at best, simply by the MJS actually asking some questions.

Simply put, I stand by my earlier statement: if you are going to publish a story accusing a sitting Supreme Court justice of felony assault - which is what Bill Lueders wrote in his story - you better damn well be sure. And your sources all better say the same thing. And at least one of your sources better have the balls to go on the record. The whole "sources wanted to remain anonymous to retain professional relationships" reeks to high heaven.

On the Dane County case that found SUMI to have gone beyond her authority. And, there's a Latin phrase that said her decision stunk. And, the case wouldn't be remanded back to her. Because she's STUPID.

And, Prosser, to clear the record, wrote his own opinion, to join the majority. But who laid out the whole story. Not just in the law. But attaching the corrosive "journalistic" articles, as well.

This caused Abrahamson to have a hissy fit.

She got rather personal.

But ya know what? She wrote a dissent. This meant she was on the losing side.

This also meant that the chief justice, because she was on the losing side, couldn't assign the case.

Looks like a small thing. But it isn't. When a chief justice is in the minority ... it means the power of the office has slid under the office door. (O'Connor used to do this to Rehnquist all of the time.)

What we don't know?

Will the democraps in Wisconsin be successful in their smear campaign against Prosser?

There's no making peace with these people.

(Oh, yeah. And, the union personnel? When they get angry enough, kids will come to class to see all the desks are only component pieces.) Chalk will give way to screwdrivers.

My thought was that if he was taller, his hands would be (naturally) placed at her collar bones with his fingers over her shoulders which is (considering how narrow in the shoulders a smallish woman can be) an approximation of "around her neck."

If he's shorter and he's avoiding grabbing her boobs his hands in a push-away motion are more likely to contact the front of her neck, which may well be uncomfortable.

And actually... it IS more likely that a woman would physically threaten a man, because women are accustomed to be excused physical violence against men.

Poor Bradley; bless her heart, she's having another of her episodes where she just doesn't know how to proceed. She lashes out; she takes offense at the criticisms of others; she menaces physical violence; and, she creates a fantasy world in which none of it was her fault.

It is a shame, really, but one day, with proper medication and the talking cure, she may be able to return to some sort of "normal" life. Sadly, for all, she has to step down and save her own life. She's just too unstable for the pressures of the Court.

"Yes, because that is more consistent with the evidence we have. I think everyone is still open to more evidence."

Yes, the evidence - especially the actions of the other justices who were in the room at the time of the attack - speaks loudly.

NONE of these other justices moved to restrain Judge Prosser. If he had initiated an unprovoked attack against this female judge, then we would be hearing about other judges who restrained him.

But interestingly, we're not hearing that.

What we are hearing is that she came at him and he defended himself. And that is consistent with the actions of the other people in the room.

One of these stories is believable. One is preposterous sounding. And it's not difficult at all for people to figure out which is which.

It's become patently obvious that Judge Bradley is working with the Soros groups to unseat Justice Prosser unjustly. That's a patently unethical act that the Wisconsin Bar Association must investigate and resolve. If this allegation bears out and it is found that Judge Bradley was acting with these groups to tar her fellow jurist, then she must be disbarred.

We cannot have judges conspiring with outside groups to intimidate a sitting Supreme Court jurist.

DK, the read- respond-read cycle does make thread conversations a little difficult. :-)

Arturo, which story sounds more plausible: a nearly 70 year old justice with no explained provocation starts strangling another individual or during a heated argument the other approaches the the first in a physically agressive posture who responds by putting up his hands in a defensive gesture, physical contact is made, after which both parties back down. The first story at best sounds incomplete.

And I will say I have seen women behave agressively toward men more often than the opposite, usually without consequence.

Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism: "The Center recently unveiled a project, funded by the Open Society Institute, to "shine a light into the operations of Wisconsin's government."" Guess who funds the Open Society Institute? GEORGE SOROS!!! Now put all of this in that context and you will have more information for those who do not live in Madison to understand where Bill Lueders is coming from. Bill Lueders is NO journalist and I wish everyone would stop calling him that! He is a partisan hack who pretended to be a journalist at an alternative paper here in Madison and with his new job he just got full blown permission to stop pretending he is not a liberal hack!

IMO, you're a loser if you resort to describing the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court as "an elderly lady"(!) in an pathetic attempt to confer some sort of victim status on her.

But I guess if those are the only card you've got to play, those are the cards you're going to play. Especially if you're not restricted by any sense of right and wrong beyond "what's good for the progressive side is good, and what's bad for the progressive side is wrong".

As our original story reported, the Center and WPR made individual inquiries to every member of the Supreme Court, as well as an inquiry to the court spokesperson which was passed on to the justices. Everyone had ample opportunity to provide information.

We had as reported "at least three" sources for the statement that Prosser allegedly put his hands around Bradley's neck. We also spoke to others who declined to give any information about what occurred. No one said or suggested in any way, shape or form that Bradley was the aggressor, a charge that Prosser himself has not made. The Journal Sentinel says it found sources who contend this, so we updated the story to reflect that, but I do not know who these sources are and have no way to gauge their credibility, as I do for the sources we had.

As you know, Justice Bradley has now publicly accused Prosser of putting his hands around her neck and ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault. In other words, the central allegation of our story has been affirmed by one of the principles. None of what we reported has been shown to be incorrect.

Our goal from the start has been to be fair and accurate. We absolutely did not have information about an alternative version that we purposely withheld. When we became aware of this alternative version. we included it. We further updated the piece to reflect that Justice Bradley has refuted this alternative version as "spin."

So only "elderly ladies" can't be yelled at? Is that why the pride of the mouth-breathing Wisconsin Democrats, Democratic Rep. Gordon Hintz who screamed that his smaller, female colleague was "fucking dead!!!", is protected from all the Prosser-like attacks? You Dems LOVE abusive men when they're on your side. In fact you celebrate them. So quit yer bitchin'.

If you ever learn the difference between "incorrect" and "incomplete," you'll do much better work in the future.

You've managed to completely miss the main point of the criticism directed at you: How could you possibly not have thought that the story as you first reported it made no sense as the whole story? Why did you rush to publish an obviously incomplete--but highly inflammatory--story?

Your sad defense of your "reporting" is as incomplete as your initial report.

Men generally don't complain of female aggression. If they do they lose status.

It's a shameful double standard... a man isn't supposed to hit a woman, but women hit men all the time. Men don't report it. Usually he's not hurt, but sometimes he is, and he still will not report it or even complain to much to others that a woman hurt him. That doesn't mean that women aren't physical as frequently or even more frequently than men.

Imagine a professional workplace where a woman in power tells a man to stop the dick measuring, or perhaps even creates a long term hostile environment by constant put-downs... imagine a man complaining of that. First of all, men don't have legal recourse to harassment. They also face social costs that women don't face.

Imagine mirror situations... A man reports that his female colleague yelled at him and called him an asshole. Is there any upside to him reporting that at all? Or will he be considered a whiner and not-sufficiently manly to deal with a little rough and tumble?

Now imagine a woman, yelled at and called a bitch by her male colleague.

If you take the trouble to read you'll notice that I have criticized the practice of anonymous sources, period. I did not say " - but I'm cool with those anonymous sources for Prosser". I'm criticizing the media here, not Bradley or Prosser.

Bradley hasn't "refuted" the claim that she angrily approached Prosser, in the sense of showing it to be wrong. She hasn't even denied it. Claiming that the account is "spin" includes the possibility that the events happened, but that they are irrelevant to the overall meaning of the event.

In other words, the central allegation of our story has been affirmed by one of the principles.{sic)

Its principals. Are you really a journalist?

You'd notice too that Walsh Bradley doesn't describe what happened in the period when she asked Prosser to leave her office and his hands ending up on her neck. Why do you think she doesn't? Aren't you curious?

Althouse probably just got back her teacher evaluations, and she's taking her anger out on Mr. Luerders. She has consistently been the worst-rated teacher at the law school, and anyone who's had this lunatic for a professor will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Regardless, the thing is this--if this was the other way around, and the accusations were against Bradley, Althouse wouldn't be asking for the entire story. She'd immediately side with the righties and that would be the end of it.

Our goal from the start has been to be fair and accurate. We absolutely did not have information about an alternative version that we purposely withheld. When we became aware of this alternative version. we included it. We further updated the piece to reflect that Justice Bradley has refuted this alternative version as "spin."

It's not fair or accurate to claim that Bradley has "refuted" - which means proven to be false or inaccurate - anything.

"Women are subjected to domestic violence more often and more severely than are men.[90][91] According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1 percent of women and 7.4 percent of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime"

Maybe men don't admit that their women are beating them, so they aren't properly represented in the above statistics. Presumably, these guys would fess up the the surveys were conducted by women who threatened to beat them up if they didn't admit to their abuse. These guys, apparently, can't escape from an overbearing gal.

Bill Lueders said...We had as reported "at least three" sources for the statement that Prosser allegedly put his hands around Bradley's neck. We also spoke to others who declined to give any information about what occurred.

3 primary sources, or 3 people who were passing on a juicy story...?

and if Bradley has confirmed everything and it matches your original story, why not reveal the 3 supporting witnesses? unless they aren't witnesses?

Ren, Obviously I don't have access to official evaluations, but I did check ratemyprofessors.com, which is pretty crappy overall but is an ok way to see what people dislike about a prof. And yes, there's a lot of complaining, but I thought this comment was informative:

While her exams are usually closed book, creating confusion and fear for students studying for her final, this ends up being better for the student in the end.

I think it's pretty common for students to dislike uncertainty in a class, but I think that's a shortsighted view. The world you're going to have to operate in is one in which figuring out exactly what's important and what's not will be the key task before you. Lots of people can follow a clear path laid out for them. Not so many can find the best path on their own. Being taught how to do that isn't always fun, and it's sure as hell anxiety-provoking, but I think it's the kind of educational experience that looks better and better in retrospect.

Not to diverge too much, but I think it's been pretty well established that only one actual "underage" girl ever existed. The rest were "sockpuppets", "pranks", etc.

Anyway, glad to see the original author is here. He doesn't exactly address Ann's points, which is fine because she's tossing around ideas, hypotheticals, etc. and he's presumably acting in a professional capacity and can't afford to do the same. Here's one question for Bill Lueder (maybe already been answered?): Were all of your sources in the room at the time of the incident?

Her exams aren't closed book. I don't know where that information came from, but it's not true. We were all terrified of the final because we had to spend the 3 days prior to it studying and teaching ourselves the law. She's such a horrendous "teacher" that we really learned, well, nothing in her class.

Althouse in front of students is essentially like watching an ADHD-ridden child desperately in need of Riddlin. She jumps all over the place, spouts garbage that essentially amounts to nothing, and there isn't a single thing she does that could be considered "teaching."

Politics do not enter the classroom...ever. Everyone knows all about where she stands because of this blog, but the ratings from the law school are low because she's a terrible teacher, not because we live in a bastion of liberalism here in Madison.

Prosser's denial is not specific. He left plenty of wiggle room. So, he can come back later to define what he's denied.

It is true that Bradley's comments have a lot of wiggle room associated w/ the specific pre-choke events. But, she has emphatically tossed out the choke accusation. Prosser only has anonymous sources who are specifically denying this.

As I've noted for two days, I can't picture what really happened. Neither side's story makes sense to me. Presumably, as we get a fuller picture, things will eventually fall into place.

I will repeat one more time, the record is quite definitive: Year in, year out, Journalism majors NOT ONLY score in the lowest quintile of all those who took the SAT (some schools require only the ACT) BUT ALSO have GPAs that fall in the lowest quintile of their class as college students..

Draw whatever conclusions you may wish..

(When I was an undergrad, journalism was the major of last resort--what one majored in when one didn't/couldn't make up one's mind about what one wanted to do in life..but things have changed, since Watergate students now realize it can be a well-paying scam with considerable prestige)

But I shouldn't tar ALL journalists with such a broad brush. Since I began spending more time in L.A. I've found that the L.A. Weekley has some real investigative journalists who write for them that do some very well-researched in-depth hard-hitting original reporting. I'm impressed by those people. The L.A. Weekly is often what "Investigative journalism" should be all about.

Ren, you pathetic hate-filled liberal, did you mean "Ritalin" when you wrote "Riddlin"? You are truly a stupid son of a bitch, but you are weak. I am surprised you didn't remember the name of the drug your mother gave you all of those many years you spent in grade school.

It is true that Bradley's comments have a lot of wiggle room associated w/ the specific pre-choke events. But, she has emphatically tossed out the choke accusation.

Then she should be posting the pictures of the marks on her neck to the CBS newssite any minute now.

Why do I think that's not going to happen?

I think it's already clear what happened here. There was some very trivial level of physical contact between Bradley and Prosser. Who started it? I don't know. Later stories of this got around to the clerks. One of them blabbed about it "off the record" to Lueders, who ran with it to advance the liberal narrative.

What's going on here ... is similar to people sitting down and reading Sherlock Holmes. Can you figure out the mystery before you get to the last page?

What's Bradley's chances of spoiling Prosser's election victory?

Meanwhile, if Prosser is smart, he will stay away from any soup. Or food. That's brought in by others. It's just safer to keep one's lips sealed ... when you know there are people spitting into your bowl.

flenser, that's what I was afraid of. I'm not going to do a side-by-side-by-side comparison of the original article, Althouse's post and Bill Leuder's subsequent post (which would take a while, but might yield interesting conclusions (questions/conflicts/agreements) if it's just based on three people repeating the story one of them made up when she (I'm guessing she) heard about the kerfuffle. Hopefully Bill Leuder will clear up this "sources" point before we spend any time on this.

Carol, the story you mention sounds similar to one written by Washington Irving, who, no doubt, stole it from some earlier story. He was a good writer, unlike the commie hack who wrote the story under consideration here.

Ren, As I stated explicitly, that quote came from ratemyprofessors.com, which I will grant is not a beacon of accuracy, but it's what I have access to.

Now, to review what you've posted here today, there's nothing I can see that's not either a classic ad hominem fallacy ("Althouse is wrong because she's a lousy teacher"), a baseless conjecture ("She wouldn't write this stuff about a conservative"), or personal opinion offered as fact "She ... spouts garbage that essentially amounts to nothing").

Her analysis of these events strikes me as clear, logical, and nonpartisan. If you can find logical or factual errors in it, by all means post them.

One thing I will grant, based on the polls she occasionally posts, is that she's not very good at formulating multiple-choice questions. But her skill in constructing an essay exam, in this case for sure, is high.

Ren, your use of hyperbole is revealing. She is "the worst" and her commenters "worship" her.

I can't debate the first because I've never had her in a class. Though I suspect there's diverging opinions, and I suspect the divergence happens along political lines for the most part.

The second part, to me, is mildly humorous because if you have been around her a while you'd know that commenters here do not "worship" her and often push back when there is disagreement.

What does happen here is that Althouse creates a space for and stimulates discussion, in which people from very diverse backgrounds and often very good education/experience in topics at hand. The variety of topics gathers even more people in, and it is this gathering of conversation that tends to be the primary draw for regulars.

Stimulating such a forum is not easy work. If Althouse's goal is to get people to think on their own and engage in continued conversation, then I think she succeeds. There's generally a conservative bent here, but depending on the topic there can be surprisingly different perspectives and opinions, most of which aren't looking to Althouse for approval. She does raise good points then pushes people to think about topics and gives space for that thinking to happen in a community forum, with all the good and bad.

I suspect that's how she is as a teacher too. Students who want to be spoon fed content so they can jump through hoops probably get very frustrated with this approach. They didn't go to law school to learn how to be creative thinkers, apparently. Not saying that's how you are, and you might have your own reasons for your opinions.

But, like I said, your use of hyperbole about her teaching and her blog is suspect, and kind of immature for a law school graduate. It undermines a potential point with unnecessary emotional content and undermines any confidence I have that your concern really is with Althouse's pedagogy.

You must be the last person on Earth to learn this, but "patriotusa76" is Dan Wolfe. Nothing anonymous about it."

It's relatively clear that he is not Dan Wolfe, and most everything else about him is completely unclear. He could be anything from that Neal psycho's idea of a prank to a jilter girlfriend to basically what he claimed to be.

But unlike Lueders' account, Pusa76 was fortunate enough that his allegations were somewhat proven. Weiner was communicating in an overly familiar and vulgar way with minors, and while it's not clear how sexual he got, he did get very sexual with many young ladies who were not minors, and is by all sane accounts, a fraud, liar, and asshole.

So PUSA76 doesn't have much to account for, aside from curiosity and an apparent effort to identify him as revenge for taking down Weiner.

Note that the people most harshly interested are Lee Stranahan and Jen Preston, both die hard democrats.

pbj, Ha ha. Good one. Why am I not surprised that you can't see a difference between introducing as evidence something that has not been observed by anyone else here, and offering an evaluation of something that's right in front of us?

It's relatively clear that he is not Dan Wolfe, and most everything else about him is completely unclear.

You should inform Big Government of this, because they have identified patriotusa76 and Dan Wolfe as being the same person. And I'm pretty sure (I can't be bothered to check) that as soon as the Weiner story broke, all the lefty bloggers and commenters were howling about Dan Wolfe by name. So it was never a Big Secret.

EXTREMELY HARD! no syllabus no quizes or homework. ur grade is based on two 35 questions tests and a comulative final that is worth 50% of ur grade!

Great teacher. Class is not mandatory but still go to class, you won't regret it! Good lecturer.

Professor Cowen is a great teacher. I look forward to going to class every week! Very clear and interesting lectures. Dynamic but does not go on tangents. The class is not hard, there is no homework and no busy work. Only 3 exams, multiple choice. Only real understanding is tested, if you don't know the material, you can not and will not do well.

"The Journal Sentinel says it found sources who contend this, so we updated the story to reflect that, but I do not know who these sources are and have no way to gauge their credibility, as I do for the sources we had."

With all due respect, I disagree with your contention here, Bill.

You do have a way to to gauge their credibility sir, and that is to GO BACK to your original three sources and confront them with this new information and report on what they tell you .

Someone is lying sir. As a journalist, your job is to keep probing and keep asking questions until the truth emerges.

If you discover that your original sources withheld information from you, you have moral and ethical obligation to disclose that. So, go do your job.

Go BACK to your original sources and confront them with these new facts.

Questions:Who approached whom? Who moved toward whom? Did any of the other justices inside the room move to restrain any of the parties? If not, then why not? Why was this attack not reported to the police immediately? Has anyone filed a criminal complaint? If not, why not? Did Judge Prosser MOVE TOWARD Judge Bradley and throttle her? Or did Judge Bradley move towards Judge Prosser and then he reacted to her movements?

You have an obligation, Bill to help us determine the WHOLE TRUTH of what occurred here. And just because you have finished your story, nothing prevents you from re-interviewing your original sources as a means of continually establishing whether they were honest with you.

It is not enough merely to meekly write down what people tell you. You must ask probing questions, gathering detail along the way, so that you can constantly judge your sources motivations and poke holes in their accounts. That is your job.

Just another Neoliberal trying to pass of Neoliberal economics as natural. Failure to realize that globalization is a problem. Neoliberal economics are what has forced the global economy into the can. Inequality is part of Free Trade. Please quit teaching Economics like this ideology will save all.

This "class" is the worst. Sure he makes things a little interesting with his lectures. However, like others have said, no syl, no blackboard, nothing but His book. Have not even seen my first or last exam. Does not respond to any attempts to contact him. When others came up to him in class he told them to see his TA. I wouldn't take him again

nevbob - you are asking a leech to do work. That goes so strongly against the grain of a stupid slacker like Lueders that you know it will never happen. He is only interested in furthering his leftist agenda, not facts. You might as well ask a pig to fly.

The sad part is that if either version of aggression is true, the justices all look like idiots..for allowing any form of altercation to happen to begin with and for letting things be handled by a leak.It's really getting to the point where we need security cams in pretty much every chamber of government. They should all be on the record/accountable for their actions at all times. Something happens in a Kwik Trip, we go to the tape...not Lueders or anonymous accounts.

"B-b-b-but Prosser never filed a police report! Doesn't that prove he was never attacked by anyone?! "

Which still follows the only reasonable speculation, because men are attacked all the time and it is never reported due to the fact that they usually defend themselves adequately, and men are socially discouraged from reporting such attacks.

It's a dog-bites-man story. A man attacking a nonviolent woman would be a Man-bites-dog story, or man-bites-bitch, if you will.

I don't care if it's true that women beat up men more than the reverse.

I'm only suggesting that it wouldn't be a bad idea to try and find some proof. But, you've said that it's impossible to do so because you speculate that the men won't admit to their victimization.

So, by definition, if you're right, all the data that contradicts your point is actually supportive! Not much more to say about that.

But, now you've moved on to the bitch/destroy talk, i.e. you're no longer describing physical abuse ("And actually... it IS more likely that a woman would physically threaten a man, because women are accustomed to be excused physical violence against men..")

As you make excuses for Prosser-type behavior, are you saying that women are more likely to be annoying, senseless nags who may cause men to, out of exasperation, want to call them bitches?

You may be able to convince that some version of that is true. But, I'd still say that men shouldn't call these nags bitches, and men shouldn't threaten to destroy these nags. Maybe this particular tiny, old man (assuming he's 5'2") doesn't know how to live w/ women. Is he, or has he been married?

I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Being a firm believer in gender equality, I reject your outdated patriarchal notion that women are delicate flowers who must be protected from mean men who might hurt their feelings.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your position would lead to the exclusion of women from the workplace.